Letters to the Editor
-
Assuming
relative finger lengths is a good predictor of analytical and/or musical ability, there is no need to bring gender into the discussion at all.
-
Totally off-topic response
Weird.
My left ring finger is ever-so-slightly longer than my left middle finger. My right ring finger is a good 1/2 centimeter shorter than my right middle finger. I never noticed that until now.
I wonder what that says about me (the finger length, not the fact that I apparently have never looked at my hands closely before... that probably says something unkind about how cut out I am for a details-oriented profession).
-
Just make being a female a protected class minority
Like being Mexican or Black or blind or a midget or in a wheelchair or (in some states) Gay. That way you automatically get chucked in the affirmative action pile and no one need debate or worry about it any longer.
-
All the girls have always told me size doesn't matter!
It's like the second thing out of their mouths!
-
I don't buy it
My testosterone level is higher than average for men of my age, and my ring fingers are shorter than my index fingers. And there's nothing to suggest that my testosterone production (or prenatal exposure) has gone from below average to above average.
-
I Love it
...because I tend to think the same level of doubt should be applied to any research, regardless of whether the findings come from or support the so-called girls' team...
Hilarious!
-
The problem with all these rules...
Is that while research and tendencies can be interesting, there are always enough exceptions to the rule that you cannot make blanket statements while you have your eyes open. If things were that cut and dried, the evidence would be a lot less murkier than it always is. It comes down to the general public as a done deal, but any researcher knows there are ambiguities and nuances, and always plenty for well-informed people to argue about. This is one reason hiring someone on the basis of sex, or whatever, is wrong - even if the rule can be determined (hard enough), who is the employer to say this person is limited by it? It's always a problem thinking of someone as part of a group rather than an individual. Individuals blow the generalities away.
-
regardless of how people decide to deal with the average gender differences one thing we know for sure: it is and always will be overwhelmingly the males who are kissing ass like crazy to get laid
that's one gender differnce you can absolutely bank on. Boy can you EVER bank on it.
-
Um, reality calling
In the areas of consideration given, you aren't hiring joe/josephine lunchbucket, these are qualities of interest for white-collar/management jobs. Which means that the person doing the hiring is upper management. Being in that lofty position myself, and I hire a lot of people every year, any exec type hiring on the basis of relative ring finger length is pretty obviously an idiot, and aside from legal type considerations, is probably stupid enough to run their organization into the ground, and remove themselves from any kind of hiring process, ie Darwinism at work.
Dubious studies and research like this, which seem to be like candy for Tracy C-F, tend to rather over-aggrandize their impact. Let me assure you, most of us that do hirings and promotions, are just a little more canny than to slavishly follow each ephemeral psych study by some academic with little experience of the real working world.
-
Hmmm
"differences are complementary, according to Fisher, and indicate that a business team balanced with men and women is ideal"
So diversity is a good thing? How very surprising!
-
Digit lengths and homosexuality
Tracy,
You failed to address the obvious: measuring relative digit lengths has been linked to homosexuality.
Your comments, please.
-
First Myers-Briggs, now finger lengths; what next -- bumps on people's heads?
Of course, it's always possible that the relative lengths of someone's fingers is the result of having had a hand broken -- as it is with my left hand.
What's wrong with assessing a person as an individual, rather than as a representative of a "type"?
-
I was feeling kind of depressed because of the other articles in Salon tonight, so I thank you for this article
I started reading the article with skepticism (because I tend to think the same level of doubt should be applied to any research, regardless of whether the findings come from or support the so-called girls' team)
Heh.
Heh heh ha.
Ha ha ha woot woohoo! rofl Rofl ROFLCOPTERS, LMAO!
Oh stop it Tracy! You're killing me!
Anyway, thanks for the sarcasm, well done.
-
Tunnel Vision
Do these studies also take into account the well documented fact that women are absent from the office at significantly higher levels and the resulting productivity drops that result ? More propaganda.
-
What if it varies between hands
Left ring finger is shorter than index finger. Right ring finger is longer than index finger. Wonder what that means?
In terms of study methodology, did they only look at one hand on each person, or did they only use people whose hands are symmetrical?
-
lefties vs. righties
Gender aside, what about the old bit about left-handed people being more creative while right-handed people are more analytical? It has been known for decades that professional musicians, creative writers, and graphic artists are far more likely to be left-handed than the population at large, and often a prospective employer can tell handedness without even meeting the person, just by looking at the slant of the applicant's handwriting.
But the problem, of course, is that there are plenty of very talented artistic types who happen to be right-handed, and plenty of highly skilled left-handed engineers and accountants. So far, I haven't heard about a single artist not getting a gallery showing or a single writer getting a rejection slip because they were right-handed, nor have I heard about H&R Block discriminating against lefties.
-
looking at your hand which way?
If I lay my hand flat on a table, my ring fingers appear to be just barely longer than my index fingers.
But if I look at my hands, palm-side-up, my index fingers are clearly longer than my ring fingers.
So...yeah, I'm skeptical of that test.
-
Finger length is correlated regardless of sex...
The length of the ring finger is correlated with several things, regardless of sex:
1) analytical ability and musical ability and to certain kinds of mathematical ability. These innate abilities are the kind of things that make great computer programmers. It also makes one somewhat of a natural musician. This is a correlation, meaning that if you take someone with strong analytical and mathematical ability, or an excellent musician and measure their index and ring fingers, the ring finger will be longer--sometimes much longer.
2) exposure to testosterone in the womb. Now, one would assume that males get that exposure more since testosterone is the "male" hormone, but women also get exposed to it.
Correlation DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION, but it IS a good predictor. I see nothing wrong with measuring ring fingers if you want to hire people with traits that correlate with longer ring fingers. Of course, I'm one of those analytical, not terribly sensitive women with the longest damned ring finger you've ever SEEN on a woman. Oh yes, and I'm a computer programmer and technology writer. I'm also a decent musician.
Finally! A point where being female and "not too sensitive" isn't considered a weakness!